PC minutes 11/16/05
ITEM No 19: Comprehensive plan amendment reguarding industrial land use (BSE)
CPA-2004-02: Hold public hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter 7 – Industrial Land Use.
Staff Presentation
Brad Ellis presented the revised Industrial Chapter of Horizon 2020 which identifies appropriate locations and standards for industrial and employment-related land use in the City of Lawrence and the unincorporated areas of Douglas County. The Planning Commission considered the chapter at its meeting in February 2005 and returned it to the Comprehensive Plans Committee (CPC) for additional review. Staff recommends approval and forwarding to the City and County Commissions for consideration.
Mr. Ellis identified the following proposed changes:
1. That Douglas County and City of Lawrence should take into consideration the environment, a diversified economy and a fiscally stable government, when making decisions about industrial and employment related land use.
2. That Industrial and employment related land used be separated into two distinct categories.
3. That a Work-live Campus Center be added to both the industrial and employment related land uses. This will be a mixed use area combining industry, business retail and residential. These areas will be held to a higher standard of design that accents and complements the natural environment and provides a comfortable environment for a live-work relationship where pedestrian activity is planned for and encouraged.
4. Summary of proposed changes in Goals and Objectives:
a. Goal 2 Criteria for Location of Industrial and Employment-Related Development, was Goal 3 in the old Chapter 7
b. Goal 3 Compatible Transition from Industrial and Employment-Related Development to Less Intensive Uses was the old Goal 2 in the old Chapter 7.
c. Policy 3.1.c provides a more detailed description of less compatible uses then in the old chapter 7.
d. Policy 3.1.d.2.c provides a more detailed description then in the old Chapter 7
e. Policy 3.1.d.4.c has been changed from “promote” to “encouraged”
f. Policy 3.2 combines old policies 2.2, 2.4 through 2.6 together.
g. Policy 3.3 replaces old policy 2.7
h. Policy 4.3 combines old policies 4.3 through 4.5.
i. Policy 4.4 combines old policies 4.4 and 4.8
j. Policy 4.5 combines old policies 4.9 through 4.11.
PUBLIC HEARING
Alan Black, representing the League of Woman Voters (LWV) directed the Commission to specific text changes suggested in the LWV letter.
Comm. Burress asked for staff reaction to the League letter. Staff indicated, for the most part, that there was not disagreement with the suggestions in the letter.
Comm. Eichhorn asked if gateway standards would supercede industrial standards. Ms. Finger indicated that gateway standards, once adopted, would be another level of standards applied to specific developments along those corridors. The commission discussed whether industrial development standards were being recommended. It was noted that development of those standards is a goal identified in the revised chapter.
Comm. Erickson asked if the Planning Commission had the authority to require transit stops. She suggested encourage may be more appropriate than require. The commission discussed having developments designed so that transit can be provided at a later date if routes are changed and requiring facilities (such as shelters) to be provided or designed into the project.
Ms. Finger indicated that on page 7-7, the League suggests the term floodprone which is not a defined term. It would be clearer to reference the 100-year or regulatory floodplain.
Questions were raised about industrial areas in the County without municipal services. Ms. Finger noted that this was for uses such as construction vehicle storage or other uses that were intended for storage and not for business activity on-site. Comm. Riordan indicated that one of the big issues to discuss was whether industrial locations should be required to annex before development. Comm. Erickson noted that page 7-8 states that the development must be served by municipal services. Comm. Lawson observed that the text makes a distinction between industrial uses that require municipal services and those that do not. He was not comfortable with a broad brush recommendation that all development needed to be annexed.
Comm. Haase expressed concern about the broad uses that are permitted in the Industrial Districts in the County Regulations and suggested that Conditional Use Permits be utilized for these types of industrial developments that do not require municipal services. Staff indicated that the development code consultants have indicated reliance on CUPs should be limited rather than expanded. Ms. Finger also noted that the County Commission directed staff and the commission to identify areas that would be appropriate for Type 3 Home Occupations to relocate to and to draft a Limited Industrial District for the County once this chapter of the comprehensive plan was updated.
The commission then proceeded to discuss the LWV letter point by point.
Page 7-2: OK with suggested change
Page 7-6: no change made
Page 7-7 (para 1): Revise with suggested changes: “… should be considered favorably. These include sites with land characteristics such as, but not limited to, locations that permit direct discharge to the floodplain, locations outside of the 100-year or regulatory floodplain, close proximity to transportation networks, close proximity to and availability of urban services, and adequate parcel size, generally over forty acres.”
Page 7-7 (para 2): no change made
Page 7-8: OK with suggested changes with substitution of imminent for immediate
Page 7-8 (last para): OK with suggested changes
Page 7-10: change with the following revisions: “… Of specific interest will be the
effect on the mix of uses that make downtown a vital and unique business center
for the community.
A critical assessment shall be made to determine that such proposed development
will not have a significantly negative impact on the Downtown.”
Page 7-11: OK with suggested change
Page 7-12: OK with suggested change and revision to last sentence to read: “New limited use, industrial uses that do not require an urban level of service such as water or wastewater may be permitted through limited use zoning or special use permit in appropriately designated areas of unincorporated Douglas County.”
Page 7-13: OK with suggested changes
Page 7-15: OK with suggested changes
Page 7-16: OK with suggested changes
Page 7-17: OK with suggested changes
Page 7-18: OK with suggested changes
Page 7-20: OK with suggested changes and revision: “Unsightly views and light trespass …”
Page 7-22: OK with suggested changes
Page 7-23: Revised to state: “d. Strongly consider public transit facilities and pedestrian-related facilities as a requirement of industrial and business park site design. e. Strongly consider public transit service and hubs as a requirement of industrial and business park site design.”
Page 7-27: No change to text.
The commission continued discussion regarding identification of sites beyond the UGA. The language in the plan is clear that significant industrial development should not occur until municipal services are available to serve the site. It is important to identify potential locations, such as the intersection of US59/US56 and other sites between Baldwin City and the Johnson County boundary, so that areas that someday may be ideal are not foreclosed to future industrial development.
Comm. Ermeling asked if the commission could set up a committee to look at developing industrial design standards.
Comm. Krebs indicated it would be appropriate to initiate a text amendment for a Limited Industrial District.
Comm. Haase stated that it would be appropriate to hold a public hearing on the ECO2 report and incorporate the results into Chapter 7 rather than have it just identified as an appendix.
Motion by Krebs, seconded by Eichhorn to approve Chapter 7 with changes as discussed and forward to the City and County Commissions for adoption.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.